Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We all know how we tend to hear what we want to hear, and no doubt listening to the debates between Hillary and Trump leaves just about everyone wondering about the truth (though we Americans may not always be interested enough to determine what is actually fact vs fiction). For those more inclined, however, for those who think the truth actually matters, I thought this was worth the time to read and consider...
Debate fact-check: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's claims reviewed
Or..., if you have a better fact-check summary from any other source, I am more than glad to see it, especially if it concludes differently than the one I read this morning in the Guardian and posted here.
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
Truth isn't objective anymore. Both political factions have their own truths. It's why compromise is no longer possible.
And if source doesn't matter, then why don't you post "the truth" from a right wing paper too?
Seems you are confused...
Truth is not a matter of objectivity. There is what is true, and there is what is false, regardless.
Some people can better determine what is true because they are more objective about that goal. Others cannot know truth, because they are too biased and subjective, leaning more toward emotion, personal agenda and ignorance, regardless the actual facts of the matter.
First consider the truth of the statements, regardless the source. Then based on the facts, pass judgement, whether the statements are Hillary's, Trump's, or a source like the Guardian attempting to determine and educate as to what is fact and what is not.
Or..., if you have a better fact-check summary from any other source, I am more than glad to see it, especially if it concludes differently than the one I read this morning in the Guardian and posted here.
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
I read that "fact-check" and if you think that's unbiased, then I don't know what to tell you.
Fact-checking is a crafty way to trick the gullible into reading opinions. The media has to "fact-check" now because it sounds more official than regular reporting, which not many people believe anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Seems you are confused...
Truth is not a matter of objectivity. There is what is true, and there is what is false, regardless.
Some people can better determine what is true because they are more objective about that goal. Others cannot know truth, because they are too biased and subjective, leaning more toward emotion and personal agenda, regardless the actual facts of the matter.
First consider the truth of the statements, regardless the source. Then based on the facts, pass judgement, whether the statements are Hillary's, Trump's, or a source like the Guardian attempting to determine and educate as to what is fact and what is not.
Right?
No. The facts in your world are not the same as the facts in mine. The "facts" are largely dependent on how the author frames the question.
I read that "fact-check" and if you think that's unbiased, then I don't know what to tell you.
Fact-checking is a crafty way to trick the gullible into reading opinions. The media has to "fact-check" now because it sounds more official than regular reporting, which not many people believe anymore.
No. The facts in your world are not the same as the facts in mine. The "facts" are largely dependent on how the author frames the question.
Can you please be specific as to what facts were checked and evaluated in that article that you find incorrect or objectionable? Pretty please?
I am very interested to know just where your facts and/or bias begins and ends when it comes to the specifics presented in this article. At a minimum, you are long on lecture and short on example to support your point of view here. You also don't offer any better fact-check source, seemingly only wanting to complain about this one, again with no real specifics or reasonable substantiation. How utterly common when it comes to opinion expressed in these threads!
Facts, truth, are NOT dependent on the questions, because the truth is the truth regardless, but of course how people understand the question and/or answer makes a bit of difference. Some people simply don't know how to separate fact from fiction, right or wrong, so all too often they give up as you seem to be doing. Or their bias causes them not to bother, better to just believe as our bias prefers.
Take this example straight from the article, for example,"Trump is largely correct about Chicago’s homicide problem: the city is on pace to have more than 600 gun deaths in 2016."
How hard is this to determine as true or not? How does the question change the truth about these numbers?
We're talking about FACTS here, not how you feel about them!
Who stuck better to the facts all considered, Hillary or Trump? This too is not so hard to evaluate or judge if one cares or bothers! That's really the essential issue, right? Again, who cares about the truth or wants to be bothered learning what it is?
fact is that article has too much input and manipulation by the author.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
